N.Korea 'Could Conduct
Fresh Nuke Test in 2 Weeks' Aug. 09,
2012
North Korea has the
capability to conduct a third nuclear test within two weeks, U.S. nuclear
experts claimed Monday. "North Korea appears to have an underground tunnel
ready for testing," write Siegfried Hecker, the director of the Center for
International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, and Frank
Pabian, a senior nonproliferation analyst at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, a the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
"Commercial
satellite imagery shows a recently excavated 'south portal' for a tunnel in
Punggye-ri, situated very close to the tunnels for the first two tests" in
2006 and 2009, they add.
The two experts
speculate the next bomb test will be based on highly enriched uranium, "or
multiple bombs will be tested simultaneously, using both [uranium] and
plutonium." The North "has a very small plutonium stockpile,
sufficient for only four to eight bombs," they say. "All the same, it
appears that plutonium is a dead end for Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal because it
shut down and has not restarted its five megawatt electric plutonium production
reactor."
In November 2010,
Pyongyang invited Hecker and showed him a uranium enrichment facility with more
than 1,000 centrifuges at Yongbyon in a bid to demonstrate its capability to
develop uranium-based nuclear weapons.
But whether and when
North Korea conducts another nuclear test “will depend on how high a political
cost Pyongyang is willing to bear," the report says. "Beijing has
continued to expand aid and trade with North Korea, but has also applied
significant diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang not to test. Moscow recently
forgave nearly $11 billion in North Korean debt, signed a new border treaty,
and is still in the game for building a gas pipeline going through the North to
South Korea, but Russia is also on record as opposing continued nuclear
testing."
The North would
therefore have to be ready to handle tensions with these two countries and
further consequences, it adds.
In April, when rumors
of an impending test first surfaced, the North Korean Foreign Ministry said the
country had "no plans to conduct a nuclear test." But the regime
hinted at resuming nuclear testing last month when it said, "Circumstances
compel us to review the nuclear issue in a wholesale way" in the wake of
an alleged foreign plot to destroy statues of regime founder Kim Il-sung.
Yonhap News Agency.
8/1/12 By Yang Jung A
North Korea remains
off of the US State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism for the
fourth consecutive year since it was first removed by the Bush administration
in 2008.
The State Department’s
Country Reports on Terrorism 2011, which was issued yesterday, asserts that
North Korea has not sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of Korean
Airlines flight 858 in 1987. Although it does take issue with North Korea’s failure
to fully cooperate with U.S. counterterrorism efforts under the Arms and
Control Act.
Concerns over North
Korea’s money laundering which were brought up by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development’s Financial Action Task Force are also brought up
in the report which says that North Korea has failed “to address the
significant deficiencies in its regulatory regimes.”
Rights Act Can Limit
Future Political Tensions
Daily NK.
7/24/12 By Cho Jong Ik
The North Korea Human Rights Act should be passed in order to facilitate the promotion of human rights in the country irrespective of the nature of the government currently in power in Seoul, according to Oh Gyeung Seob of the Sejong Institute.
It proved impossible to pass the act during the 18th National Assembly to date due to the opposition of the Democratic United Party.
Oh, who was speaking at an event hosted by the Advancement and Unification Party entitled ‘North Korea Human Rights Act: What Are We to Do?’ asserted, “Activities supporting North Korea human rights, which have tended to be affected by political surroundings, should be institutionalized by the enactment of the North Korea Human Rights Act. The North Korea human rights movement has had its ups and downs largely because of opposition parties and leftist factions. Therefore, legislation is necessary.”
“There needs to be more support for North Korean human rights activities undertaken by private organizations. Moreover, support for programs on abductees and the repatriation of POW should be more specific and the regulations broader,” he went on.
The North Korea Human Right Acts should, “state specifically the reinstatement of KBS social education broadcasting, as well as support for civilian radio programs and analog TV broadcasting targeting North Korea. To promote and educate people about North Korean human rights we need to build a North Korean human rights memorial hall or a museum,” he also added.
At the same event, Chungang University Professor Jae Sung Ho argued, “It is critical to inter-Korean relations and the human rights situation to have a consistent voice. The enactment of the North Korea Human Rights Act can be an important tool by which to support this.”
Professor Jae pointed out, “West Germany did not only pursue ‘quiet solutions,’ but aggressive measures were also taken. North Korea will oppose this in the short term, but in the mid to long term significant progress can be made in deterring human rights abuses.”
Kim Kyung Woong, who chairs a group dedicated to civilian exchanges and cooperation, emphasized that the Saenuri Party should agree on the contents of the bill with the opposition. He explained, “North Korea Human Rights Act should not become a target for ideological conflict. There is little practical difference between the bills suggested by either side, and therefore they should just agree and enact it.”
He went on, “The enactment of North Korea Human Rights Act will give the North Korean people hope and defend the legitimacy of universal human rights. It might result in awkward Inter-Korea relations in the short term, but it can act like a healthy tonic for mid- to long-term inter-Korean relations.”
The North Korea Human Rights Act should be passed in order to facilitate the promotion of human rights in the country irrespective of the nature of the government currently in power in Seoul, according to Oh Gyeung Seob of the Sejong Institute.
It proved impossible to pass the act during the 18th National Assembly to date due to the opposition of the Democratic United Party.
Oh, who was speaking at an event hosted by the Advancement and Unification Party entitled ‘North Korea Human Rights Act: What Are We to Do?’ asserted, “Activities supporting North Korea human rights, which have tended to be affected by political surroundings, should be institutionalized by the enactment of the North Korea Human Rights Act. The North Korea human rights movement has had its ups and downs largely because of opposition parties and leftist factions. Therefore, legislation is necessary.”
“There needs to be more support for North Korean human rights activities undertaken by private organizations. Moreover, support for programs on abductees and the repatriation of POW should be more specific and the regulations broader,” he went on.
The North Korea Human Right Acts should, “state specifically the reinstatement of KBS social education broadcasting, as well as support for civilian radio programs and analog TV broadcasting targeting North Korea. To promote and educate people about North Korean human rights we need to build a North Korean human rights memorial hall or a museum,” he also added.
At the same event, Chungang University Professor Jae Sung Ho argued, “It is critical to inter-Korean relations and the human rights situation to have a consistent voice. The enactment of the North Korea Human Rights Act can be an important tool by which to support this.”
Professor Jae pointed out, “West Germany did not only pursue ‘quiet solutions,’ but aggressive measures were also taken. North Korea will oppose this in the short term, but in the mid to long term significant progress can be made in deterring human rights abuses.”
Kim Kyung Woong, who chairs a group dedicated to civilian exchanges and cooperation, emphasized that the Saenuri Party should agree on the contents of the bill with the opposition. He explained, “North Korea Human Rights Act should not become a target for ideological conflict. There is little practical difference between the bills suggested by either side, and therefore they should just agree and enact it.”
He went on, “The enactment of North Korea Human Rights Act will give the North Korean people hope and defend the legitimacy of universal human rights. It might result in awkward Inter-Korea relations in the short term, but it can act like a healthy tonic for mid- to long-term inter-Korean relations.”
S. Koreans to file
suit against NK leader in int'l criminal court
The Korea Times.
7/25/12
A South Korean private
committee said Wednesday that it will file a lawsuit against North Korean
leader Kim Jong-un with the International Criminal Court in September.
The move is designed
to put pressure on the communist country to repatriate the hundreds of South
Korean soldiers taken prisoner and the remains of those killed during the
1950-53 Korean War, said Park Sun-young, a former lawmaker who has championed
the rights of North Korean defectors and South Korean prisoners of war (POWs).
The committee, which
calls for the return of the South Korean POWs, also said it plans to present a
petition to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the issue in the fall,
said Park, one of about 50 committee members.
"The pressure
will be enormous," Park said after a news conference in the National
Assembly as she vowed to make efforts to try to bring home aging former South
Korean soldiers.
South Korea estimates
about 500 POWs are believed to still be alive in the North. Pyongyang denies
holding any POWs and claims former South Korean soldiers voluntarily defected.
Park claimed former
South Korean soldiers toil in mines in the North, citing testimonies of some of
the 56 former POWs who escaped to the South after spending decades in the
North.
The war ended in a
cease-fire, not a peace treaty, leaving the two Koreas technically still at
war.
She also said the
committee plans to upload testimonies of former South Korean POWs to YouTube to
raise international awareness of the issue.
Choi Eun-suk, a North
Korea legal expert at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies at Kyungnam
University, said he did not think it is impossible to pressure the North to
return former South Korean soldiers. He did not elaborate. (Yonhap)
WIPO Arouses Divisions
in U.S. Leadership
Daily NK. 7/25/12 By
Clara Fontana
Division have appeared
in the U.S. government over the issue of potentially sanctions-busting
technology transfers to North Korea by WIPO, a specialized agency under the
auspices of the UN, with State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland going
directly against a press release from the House Foreign Affairs Committee the
same day.
According to Nuland,
despite “concerns” over alleged wrongdoings by the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) in sending sensitive technology to North Korea and Iran,
the State Department’s initial impression is that “there doesn’t appear to have
been a violation of UN sanctions.”
However, Nuland added,
“This has now been referred to the sanctions committee for them to make their
own determination, so we will await the views of the respective UN sanctions
committees. We are also seeking more information from WIPO so that we can
conclude our own work on whether there was any violation of U.S. law, but we
don’t yet have everything that we need in order to make that assessment.”
Nuland also made
mention of “a number of positive steps” WIPO has taken since the story broke
earlier in the year. Her comments emphasized the agency’s cooperation with the
investigation, and when asked if she felt “stonewalled” by WIPO, her answer on
behalf of the State Department was “We do not. No.”
This runs counter to
the position of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which, headed by Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, has been undertaking its own investigation into possible
UN sanction violations.
In its own Tuesday
press release, the committee announced that a briefing on the subject of WIPO
had been cancelled due to a “lack of cooperation” allegedly due to WIPO
Director-General Francis Gurry’s refusal to allow senior agency staff members
to testify.
This inspired
committee chair Ros-Lehtinen and ranking opposition member Rep. Howard L.
Berman to declare, “By refusing to commission an independent investigation and
by obstructing an investigation by the Congress of the United States, whose
citizens provide so much of the funds that keep WIPO operating,
Director-General Gurry sends the message that he is not committed to
transparency, accountability, and reform.”
The statement
concluded, “We urge Director-General Gurry to change course and immediately
allow WIPO personnel invited by the Committee to testify and appear without
fear of any form of retaliation for their testimony.
Sources: North Korean
Refugees Foundation
Peterson Institute for
International Economics. 7/25/12 By Stephan Haggard and Jaesung Ryu
A recent New York
Times story made reference to South
Korea’s North Korean Refugees Foundation (NKRF); we were not familiar with it
so we took a closer look. Established in 2010, NKRF was set up as one of the
country’s many quasi-governmental foundations. The head of the foundation is
appointed by the Ministry of Unification, with a board that includes deputy ministers
of the MOU as well as the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, plus the chairs of
the Korean Red Cross and the Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces.
Funding is governmental.
The Foundation is
designed to complement government policy, in this case the mandatory but
ultimately limited three-month resettlement program through Hanawon. Dan
Pinkston’s invaluable report from the International Crisis Group provides an
introduction to South Korea’s changing resettlement efforts. The organization is
based on the premise that financial support is not enough. Among the services
rendered are consulting, medical check-ups, shelters for women and teenagers,
childcare, employment training and educational support services.
This problem will
continue to resonate. Despite some evidence of a pause in 2012, South Korea
still took in over 2500 refugees in 2011. By one metric, this is only a trickle
but as the Times points out, the problems of acculturation are not trivial.
Another function of
NKRF is research (no English webpage is available yet). The foundation has been
commissioning surveys and initiating research projects that relate to
settlement issues faced by North Koreans.
A final note; the
foundation’s English name uses the word “refugee” (난민, or nanmin) but the Korean name uses “defectors” or bukhan-ital-chumin (북한이탈주민). The origins of this term are bukhan (North Korea) +
ital (desertion, defection) + chumin (residents). (See for example the South
Korean Protection and Settlement Support for North Korean Defectors Act (in Korean).
We have reflected on this terminological issue before. The core issue is the
reluctance to refer to fellow citizens as “refugees,” despite the fact they fit
the definition by any measure we can see.
`3 defectors go back
to N.Korea, raising returnee tally to 100`
The Donga Ilbo.
7/22/12
Three more North
Korean defectors have reportedly returned to the communist country, in addition
to two others who recently returned to the North and held news conferences.
There are also claims
that more than 100 defectors have returned to North Korea this year alone.
Their rush to go back home and the possibility of groups trying to lure
defectors to return to the North are disturbing the defectors’ community in
South Korea.
Park Sun-young, a
former lawmaker of the minor conservative Liberty Forward Party of South Korea,
said Sunday that she learned that three female defectors who resettled on Jeju
Island went back to the North in May.
“They entered the
South within the last five years, and one of them was in her late 20s, another
in her mid-30s, and the third in her early 40s,” she said.
Park said the three
decided to return to the North not just because of a change of heart but
because of Pyongyang’s efforts to lure back defectors who failed to adapt to
South Korean society.
“They went back to the
North via China after being lured by the North’s promise not to punish them for
deserting their country as well as new homes in Pyongyang and new jobs,” she
said. “The number of North Korean defectors who returned to the North this year
is estimated to top 100.”
Another defector, Pak
In Suk, was lured back to the North after being in financial trouble in the
South due to a swindle. She had left her family in the North.
Jon Yong Chol, another
defector who recently went back to the North, claimed in the Stalinist country
that she had been instigated by a South Korean group to destroy the statue of
North Korea founder Kim Il Sung. Jon also had no steady job in the South.
The three who lived in
Jeju are also said to have complained about difficulty living in South Korea. A
former North Korean dancer who committed suicide early this month after
defecting to the South is also said to have agonized over financial hardship
and the North’s attempt to lure her back.
The increasing number
of defectors going back to the communist state seems related to the North’s
attempt to strengthen security near its border with China since February.
Pyongyang is using the returnees for propaganda purposes, holding news
conferences for them to highlight the “miserable” lives of defectors in the
South and say they received new homes in Pyongyang.
The rise in the number
of defectors going back to North Korea has led to fears that South Korea’s
interrogation methodology for defectors will be leaked. North Koreans who
defect to the South stay at an interrogation center for up to six months so
that intelligence and police agents determine if they are genuine defectors and
not spies.
If the interrogation
methodology is exposed, this could be exploited by North Korean agents who
attempt to enter South Korea under the guise of defectors. In addition, South
Korean intelligence agents in charge of handling defectors in China and other
countries could have their covers blown.
Seoul has recently
found circumstantial evidence that certain defectors entered the South with
specific purposes and returned to the North. Another potential problem is that
with the rising number of defectors opting to go back to the North, South
Koreans could feel that defectors can return to the North at any time and fuel
social alienation and discrimination against defectors in the South.
Moreover, the rising
number of returnees to the North could also taint South Korea’s image abroad.
A government official
in Seoul said, “We believe that fewer than 10 North Korean defectors have
returned to the North so far,” but added that making an official tally is
difficult because the defectors returned to the North clandestinely. South
Korea plans to provide professional counselors for defectors to prevent them
from being pressed by the North to return to their families left behind, the
official added.
South urges U.S. to
ease limits in nuclear treaty
Korea Joongang Daily.
7/23/12 By Chang Se-jeong
Foreign Minister Kim
Sung-hwan said yesterday that he will push the United States to lift long-time
restrictions on the reprocessing of nuclear fuel as the two sides renegotiate
their nuclear treaty that is set to expire in 2014.
Minister Kim told the
JoongAng Ilbo yesterday that Washington has hinted it may reconsider its
contentious prohibition as stipulated in the 1974 bilateral agreement.
The issue of nuclear
reprocessing has been controversial as the South is dependent on nuclear energy
and is running out of storage space for spent fuel. The United States has
restricted the practice because the plutonium and the uranium that results from
nuclear reprocessing can be used to build atomic bombs.
According to Minister
Kim, Washington is showing more flexibility on the issue.
“We were informed that
Washington isn’t in a position of ‘saying never’ to the matter of allowing the
South to reprocess nuclear fuels,” Kim said yesterday. “It’s been 40 years
since the bilateral agreement was signed. Considering the fact that the
situation has changed [since then], we will clarify what we want.”
Due to the
reprocessing restrictions, the South has annually spent 600 billion won ($526
million) on outsourcing enrichment of U.S.- or French-supplied uranium fuels
overseas.
Korea has also
demanded the U.S. government allow the development of pyroprocessing
technology, which enables the reuse of wastes but doesn’t produce uranium or
plutonium that could be used for nuclear weapons from spent fuels.
The current agreement
strictly bans any process involving nuclear wastes.
But Foreign Ministry
sources told the JoongAng Ilbo yesterday that Washington is also considering
allowing pyroprocessing. They did say that deadlock remains in approving uranium
enrichment.
Sources also said that
the renewed agreement will expire after 10 years, not 40 years like the
previous agreement, as the previous long-term agreement failed to reflect South
Korea’s fast-growing nuclear energy industry.
Currently, South Korea
is ranked as one of the world’s top five countries in terms of capacity to
develop nuclear energy, with 20 reactors in operation, six under construction
and plans to increase its nuclear capacity to 38 reactors by 2030.
These reactors will
produce more than 110,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel by 2100.
South Korea also plans
to become an international exporter of nuclear plants. After winning a $20.4
billion contract to develop nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates in
2009, the government announced its objective to export 80 nuclear reactors by
2030. But the exports also need U.S. consent in advance under the current
nuclear treaty.
“The level of Korea’s
nuclear energy technologies has been really different since we signed the
bilateral nuclear agreement,” Lee Eun-cheol, a nuclear energy studies professor
at Seoul National University, told the JoongAng Ilbo.
“Considering this
change of Korea’s nuclear energy capability, the agreement should be revised.”
But the issue of
nuclear nonproliferation, especially on the Korean Peninsula, remains.
“There’s difficulty in
considering not only economic benefits but also nuclear nonproliferation when
it comes to allowing uranium enrichment,” a high-ranking ministry official told
the JoongAng Ilbo.
The original version
of the nuclear agreement was signed on Feb. 3, 1956, and revised in 1958 and
1965. The current version is titled “The Agreement for Cooperation between the
Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of
America concerning Civil Use of Atomic Energy.”
